Die regulering van virtuele geld in Suid Afrika

Abstract

Roman law defines physical objects or bodily objects as matters that can be felt or touched. In 2009, the virtual currency landscape was finally changed forever when the instructions for a full peer-to-peer payment network were published. This system was called "Bitcoin" and it eliminated the need for trust in a payment system. However, there are risks associated with the use of virtual currency due to the absence of an established regulatory framework for virtual currency in South Africa and no protection is provided for consumers' assets and there is also no guarantee of a right of recourse in a case of loss due to fraud. The Intergovernmental FinTech Working Group (IFWG) Discussion Paper serves as a valuable contribution by establishing the risks posed by crypto-assets and the need to regulate them. This raises the question of how South Africa will have to proceed to develop a regulatory framework regarding crypto-asset activities. Advances in the regulation of virtual money have been made in countries such as France and Germany and can be a valuable example for South Africa. A progressive step for the future could be for South Africa to formally adopt its own virtual currency like China, which intends to launch its own virtual currency within the next year based on its own needs. A possible solution for South Africa would be if registration requirements were set for all crypto-asset service providers as well as asset trading platforms, those who handle in the buying and selling of crypto-assets, those who trade, and service providers who exchange fiat currency for crypto-assets and digital wallet providers. Another possible solution is to self-regulate trading platforms to prevent consumers from becoming victims of fraud and theft and other forms of crime.

Die Romeinse reg omskryf fisiese objekte of liggaamlike objekte as sake waaraan geraak of gevat kan word. In 2009 is die virtuele geldeenheidslandskap uiteindelik vir altyd verander toe die instruksies vir 'n volledige eweknienetwerk ("peer-to-peer") betaalnetwerk gepubliseer was. Hierdie stelsel was “Bitcoin” genoem en dit het die behoefte aan vertroue in 'n betalingsstelsel uitgeskakel. Daar is egter risiko's verbonde aan die gebruik van virtuele geld as gevolg van die afwesigheid van 'n gevestigde regulatoriese raamwerk vir virtuele geld in Suid-Afrika en daar word geen beskerming vir verbruikers se bates gebied nie en daar is ook geen waarborg vir 'n verhaalsreg in ‘n geval van verlies weens bedrog nie. Die Interregerings Fintech Werkgroep (“Intergovernmental FinTech Working Group” ("IFWG")) se Besprekingsdokument dien as ‘n waardevolle insetting ten aansien van risiko’s wat kripto-bates inhou en die behoefte aan die regulering daarvan. Dit laat die vraag ontstaan hoe Suid-Afrika te werk sal moet gaan om die behoefte aan 'n regulerende raamwerk te ontwikkel ten opsigte van kripto-bate-aktiwiteite. Vordering ten aansien van die regulering van virtuele geld wat gemaak is in lande soos Frankryk en Duitsland kan 'n waardevolle voorbeeld vir Suid Afrika wees. ‘n Progressiewe stap vir toekoms kan wees dat Suid-Afrika formeel sy eie virtuele geldeenheid aanneem soos China wat van plan is om binne die volgende jaar hulle eie virtuele geldeenheid bekend te stel gebaseer op China se eie behoeftes. ‘n Moontlike oplossing vir Suid-Afrika sal wees as daar registrasievereistes aan alle kripto-bates diensverskaffers gestel word sowel as batehandelplatforms, diegene wat die koop en verkoop van kripto-bates behartig, diegene wat handel dryf en diensverskaffers wat fiat-geldeenheid ruil na kripto-bates en digitale beursieverskaffers. 'n Ander moontlike oplossing is die selfregulering van verhandelings platforms om te verhoed dat verbruikers nie slagoffers van bedrog en diefstal en ander vorms van misdaad is nie.